Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 11, 2010
Meeting held in Bryant 209
Agenda
 Senator Albritton opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
 First order of business: Approve minutes of last meeting
o Moved by Sen. Barnett
 Seconded
 Voted
 Approved unanimously
 Second order of business: Presentation by Provost Stocks
o Response to Senate Issues
 Absence Policy
 Passed undergrad council by one vote
 Failed to pass CAA
o Wording issues were cause
 Revised policy to come at next CAA meeting
 Last Week of Class
 Presented to undergrad council on April Fools' Day
o Failed at UC 7-1
 Branch Campus Quality Control
 Writing support centers formed at Tupelo and Desoto campuses
 A group is looking at preparatory courses in writing and related
disciplines
 Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty Peer Comparison
 Percentage of tenure and tenure-track faculty declining nationwide
 Metrics vary based on methods of counting
 IRA provided comparative data
o UM 2010-2011 compared to SUG average 2009-2010
(most recent data from both)
o Most UM units have more tenure-track/tenure faculty than
SUG average with some exceptions
 Question: is data skewed by small sample sizes? Chemical
Engineering has 6 tenured faculty but only shows as 97%
o Provost Stocks: IRA will have to field that
 Enrollment Plan
 IHL policy changed in Spring 2011
 September 2011 issue of Reader's Digest highlights enrollment
issues
 Some control on admissions is needed
o Nonresident applications are area of flexibility
o If we're at capacity, we may cull some nonresident
applicants


Nonresidents below 2.5 GPA or 20 ACT will be considered for
admissions deferment
o Considerations based on graduation stats, first-year
performance, recruiting goals, number of applicants, and
capacity
Committee has been formed with Senate representation to consider
these applications
o Stipends
 Amended plan passed by Senate to go to IHL next week
 Graduate stipends in UM 2020
 Short-range and long-range strategies considered, including
matching funds, grant assistantships, and 90% of regional average
as goal
 Average (from 950 assistantships) ranges from $33,000 to $1100
 Mode is $3600
 Median is $9000
 Mean is $9700
 Most graduate funds are not centrally supported but support instead comes
from the Graduate School
 Graduate stipend money has increased lately through temporary
and permanent increases
 However, there are significant unspent stipends carried forward
both centrally and in departments
o Some money is not being spent
 Question: can unspent money be reallocated to other departments?
o Provost Stocks: Yes, but it would have to be done by
individual deans
o Some of the unspent money may be used for other purposes
 Question: How can there be carry-forwards when departments
don't seem to have any money?
o Associate Provost Wilkin: Graph is only for stipends; data
for individual departments can be provided
o Departments often do not know about this money
o University Update
 Campus has grown by nearly 3000 students over 3 years
 Freshmen are up by nearly 1000 students
 Average ACT, GPA, and diversity are all up
 Question: Doesn't the larger honors college explain this?
o Provost Stocks: Data is available; honors is part, but Croft,
Lott, CME, and Provost Scholars help
 Question: Is the university advertising these facts?
 Provost Stocks: Not really; there is no chief advertising officer
 International students have grown 42%
 State allocations down to 16%
 UM has lowest state appropriation per FTE student among state
universities


UM assesses $10,000 in fees and collects and average of 90% of
that after scholarships
 UM spends more on academics and less on student services than
any other Mississippi university
 Renovations
 Lamar Hall, Coulter Hall, Natural Products, and Central
Mechanical Plant renovations to be completed 2013
 Howry/Faulkner, Old Wal-Mart, new Student Housing to be
completed 2012
 Union renovations in design phase; will take 3 years from
inception
 Class size has increased, but number of sections has as well
 More large sections
 46% of classes are still taught by tenure/tenure-track faculty
 Faculty/student ratio is 19:1
o Questions
 Question: What about the Turner Center?
 Provost Stocks: Turner Center is #3 priority; facility was built for a
population of only 7000 students
 Other needs are competing with it
 Senator Barnett: What about growth in tenure/tenure-track faculty
compared to instructors?
 Provost Stocks: Not the university administration's place to dictate,
but ideally the growth will be a mix
o Dictated by individual departments and colleges
o Add'l doctoral candidates are a possibility
 Question: How big can we get?
 Provost Stocks: Short-term, there are severe constraints
o We need more beds, cafes, classrooms, parking spots, and
teachers
o Classrooms (especially labs) and eating space are keenest
concerns; parking is adequate but not convenient to central
campus
o Ideally, we move from being a small, poor institution to a
medium, financially stable one
o Out of state tuition can grow
 Question: What is our ability to turn away qualified applicants?
 Provost Stocks: We are obligated to accept qualified Missisippians
o Out-of-staters are only current area of flexibility
 Associate Provost Wilkin: capacity assessment is coming; will help
make these decisions
Third order of business: Committee reports
o Executive Committee
 Resolution in support of Chancellor is presented for senate approval
 Sen: Lobur: Name of the group should be struck from second paragraph










Seconded
Discussion:
o Should group be called anonymous? They have a
spokesperson
 Vote
o 28 yea
o 8 nay
o Passed
Question: What was committee's goal in proposing resolution?
 Senator Albritton: support for chancellor was only aim
o Some drafts were very detailed about nature of attacks
o Overall, committee felt that public statement of support
was key issue
Comment: Statement of support is infringement of free speech
 Senator Lobur: Free speech is important, but we should support the
chancellor's stand in the face of a pressure group
o Would set a dangerous precedent
o Senate has the right to support chancellor in such
circumstances
Comment: Executive committee was not unanimous; since academic
freedom is not under direct threat, response is not necessarily warranted
Senator Lobur: Pressue groups dictating policy is a bad precedent
 Comment: Are they really dictating policy?
 Comment: There is a difference between an expression of opinion
and threatening the administration
Senator Bing: Nature of threats is unknown; are they simply withholding
of monies or physical threats?
 Question: Is nature of threats known?
 Provost Stocks: Decline to comment on exact nature, but
chancellor has issued some statements
Comment: Mississippi Public Radio broadcast a program which stated that
the link between threats and the Forward Rebels is tenuous; Senate would
be tying threats together without evidence
 Senator Lobur: Supporting chancellor and ignoring the group is
prudent
 Senator Watson: Removing the name of the group should assuage
that threat
Question: How are these threats different from any other situation, like the
mascot or the chant?
 Senator Lobur: in previous situations, the chancellor has never
been moved to call the pressure group "uncivil" as he has now
Move that resolution be shortened to paragraphs 3 and 6, with paragraph 6
sending at the word "stand" and adding "against this anonymous group"
 Seconded by Senator Lobur
 Discussion:
o Question: Why shorten it so much?



o
o
o
o
There is some support for all the resolution and
some opposition, so this is a compromise
Comment: amendment would be contrary to
resolution's primary aims, especially the elimination
of point #5
Vote
o 1 yea
o All others nay
o Defeated
 Vote on resolution as a whole
 21 yea
 15 nay
 Passes as amended
Academic Affairs
No report
Academic Support
 IT is willing to put together a FAQ on the new email system and
Blackboard for faculty
 FAQ can be built from faculty submissions
 Room reservation process has been discussed
 Ad-Astra is being implemented to address this
Governance
 Proposal on representation of non-tenure and non-tenure-track faculty in
faculty senate
 Report has been issued to senators; five options have been proposed
 Move to receive report and its findings
 Seconded
 Discussion:
o Comment: Perhaps senators should approach non-tenuretrack faculty to make their representation known
o Question: How is representation of non-tenure-track faculty
our job?
 Depends on department; line is finer in some highteaching-load areas
 Comment: As a Research 1 school that distinction is
in place for a reason
o Comment: Non-tenure-track faculty have no representation
o Comment: Isn't representing them a conflict of interest, as
they can take faculty positions?
o Question: Is this creating more responsibilities without
more rights for the non-tenure-track faculty?
o Question: What is it that non-tenure-track people will be
representing? There are already representatives from
various places
o Comment: Modern Languages has only one faculty
representative despite a large body of non-tenure-track
faculty
 Senator Albritton: Pharmacy counts adjuncts
o Senator Barnett: Support for conflict of interest position;
hypothetical resolution for more tenure lines would result
in one of other group being shortchanged
o Comment: Wouldn't non-tenure-track faculty want more
spots so they could be hired with tenure?
o Sen. Lobur: Many are not eligible for tenure; do not have
proper credentials
o Comment: Their own body might be the best option
o Senator Watson: Are non-tenure-track faculty eligible for
representation on other bodies like the staff council?
 Unknown at this time
o Senator Albritton: Other institutions have their own bodies,
often combined with instructors
o Question: Were we to choose among the stated
possibilities?
 No, we were to gauge support, as a sort of straw
poll
o Question: Is such a nonbinding straw poll possible?
 Why not?
o Senator Albritton: refer back to committee for a formal
motion is most prudent step
 A recommendation for no change requires no vote
 A recommendation for change requires vote
 Moved
 Seconded
 Voted
 Approved unanimously



o Finance
 No report
o University Services
 No Report
Fourth order of business: Old business
o None
Fifth order of business: New business
o None
Senator Albritton closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.